http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=31491
Can a doctor really believe that the foreskin, frenulum, etc., are not part of the sexual organ? Incredible. Through creative semantics, she devalues unique penile structures and declares intact man have some kind of foreign object clinging to, but not part of, their sex organ. Hey doc, if it's not part of the sex organ, what is it part of?
Nobody said it worked, doc, but the historical record shows unambiguously that curbing masturbation was a major reason given for circumcising.
University of California at San Francisco pediatric urologist Larry Baskin and general pediatrician Meg McNamara are, apparently, ill informed.
What author Amy Graff may not have understood is that asking a couple of American doctors is a dubious way to debunk myths about circumcision.
Quote:
| Circumcision is genital mutilation. "I don't have a lot of patience for people who compare circumcision to genital mutilation," McNamara says. "It's different. You're removing the foreskin. You're not actually removing part of the sexual organ." |
Quote:
| Circumcision was introduced to our culture in an attempt to eliminate masturbation. "Last time I checked people who have been circumcised still masturbate," Baskin says. |
University of California at San Francisco pediatric urologist Larry Baskin and general pediatrician Meg McNamara are, apparently, ill informed.
What author Amy Graff may not have understood is that asking a couple of American doctors is a dubious way to debunk myths about circumcision.
I really felt like my head would burst reading that article.. ugh ugh ugh...
Great responses everyone. How infuriating.
